The Daily - Friday, Mar. 2, 2018

Episode Date: March 2, 2018

When we spoke with Representative Tom Rooney, a Florida Republican, in July, he said he was starting to feel defeated by the state of politics in Washington. Nine months later, we check back in, and he talks frankly about the Russia investigation, gun control and his decision not to run for re-election. Guest: Representative Tom Rooney, Republican of Florida. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily Watch. Today, last July, we spoke with Congressman Tom Rooney, a Republican from Florida who was starting to feel defeated by the state of politics in Washington. Nine months later, we check back in. It's Friday, March 2nd. Okay, we're ready. Congressman Tom Rennie's office. How may I help you?

Hey, it's Michael Barbaro from the New York Times. I'm trying to reach Alison Nielsen. All right, just one moment. Hello? Congressman, hey, it's Michael Barbaro. How are you? How are you? Good. We didn't get any hold music this time. I will have that fixed.

I like that music. I do, too. It's really, really good. How are you? I'm good. Just a little different than the last time I talked that music. I do, too. It's really, really good. How are you? I'm good. Just a little different than the last time I talked to you. I think I was getting ready to run for re-election. Of course, that's changed now. Well, I actually wanted to play you our last exchange. I think it's going to tee up our conversation really nicely. So with your indulgence, here we go. our conversation really nicely. So with your indulgence, here we go. So I have a final question, Congressman Rooney. It doesn't sound exactly like you find the job of being a congressman, the job of being a congressman that you dreamed of, and you had to decide whether to seek re-election in the past couple of weeks. And in giving everything you've told me, I could see it going really either way.

Well, I didn't mean to mislead you into thinking that I had to make the decision in the next couple of weeks. That's not true. Qualifying for my job is in May of the election year. But I do really want to be part of a government that finally works. And I'm not saying that it has to work like in some utopian fairytale way. And we get everything that we want as Republicans and us and the president are all on the same page with the Senate. I mean, I'm realistic enough to know, but, you know, I do want to be part of trying to solve problems in a way that shows that the Republican Party can govern and that we've got good ideas that can help this country. And if I don't think that I can do that, and I don't think that I can do that when we have a complete control of the government, then there might come another time where you and I will talk about a different way forward. But right now, I still, I think it's early enough that I still

have faith that we can do that. I hope that I'm right. I really do. enough that I still have faith that we can do that. I hope that I'm right. I really do. So, Congressman Rudy, that time has come. So what are you thinking, hearing yourself say that? Well, I might not have been completely honest with myself, even when I was talking to you last time. And, you know, it almost sounded there like I was trying to convince myself that things would get better. But, you know, look, politics and Congress and, you know, the government works the way that it works now. And I just, I mean, like just listening to myself there, I wonder if I was, I was trying to convince myself of something different just If I was trying to convince myself of something different just because I wasn't ready to make an announcement.

But I think that for me, too, it was also like, you know, is there still a way for me to make a difference in this job? Well, I want to talk about that. Before we get too much into your decision, I was hoping we could start by catching up on what's happened since we last spoke over the summer. Just a few months into Trump's presidency was when we had that conversation because a ton of things have happened in that time since. Congress has shut down the federal government twice. There's been a bitter and still unresolved battle over immigration. a bitter and still unresolved battle over immigration. Republicans tried but failed once again to repeal the Affordable Care Act while passing a tax bill, but they passed that tax bill with virtually no Democratic support. And finally, there's the Russia investigation, which has intensified, especially in terms of the House Intelligence Committee, of which you

remember. That's a lot of ground. Yeah. And a lot of those things aren't good. Leading up to and including last night, you know, I went on television and called for an end to the House-Russia investigation, not because I don't think that there's still more information that we could gather from witnesses, but because the investigation has just completely gone off the rails politically. I want to zero in on what you just said, because I find it remarkable that as a leading Republican on this committee, this really prestigious committee, the House Intelligence Committee, you're calling for an end to what is arguably the premier investigative work of the committee, and an investigation that has extraordinarily high stakes, you know, Russian meddling in sacred presidential elections. Can you elaborate on why you think it needs to be

shut down? Because I feel like it has become a tool for, and this is going to, this is going to sound partisan, but it's just the way I feel. I feel like it's become a tool for the Democrats, whether it be members or staff, to use that to drive the media of the day. If we cannot do this investigation with the integrity to interview the witnesses and do a bipartisan report, we've already been told that there's not going to be a bipartisan report. There's going to be a majority report and a minority report, but it's not going to be a bipartisan report. There's going to be a majority report and a minority report. But it's not going to be bipartisan.

And if it's not going to be bipartisan, it might as well just end. I mean, you have this Hope Hicks interview yesterday, which lasted, or two days ago, I'm sorry, which lasted for nine hours. It was leaked that she had told white lies for the president, of which, you know, there isn't a politician up here that doesn't tell their staffer to tell somebody that, you know, I'm not here or anything that could be considered a white lie. But I specifically asked, has the president ever asked you to lie about this investigation, what we're doing here today or anything related to the Russia investigation, to which the answer was no. But it was too late. It already got out to the press that Hope Hicks told white lies for the president. And that drove the media for the rest of the day. And I said to my chairman, Mike Conway, I was like, Mike, we have gone off the rails. This is no longer an investigation about getting information. This is an investigation to see who can get to the media first to make the other side look bad. And I just said it needs to end. I'm not talking about Mueller's investigation. That's separate. I'm talking about our investigation. And it's really too bad because

the Intel Committee used to be completely nonpartisan. What we did down there was a secret. And it was one sort of place of refuge in the house where you could go and check your party identification at the door because we were there to just find out what our spies were doing and what we're doing in the clandestine world and the intelligence community and help them do their job. So you're saying your committee has gotten so partisan that the president's communications director can't say something that, if we're being honest, we all kind of know to be true about a communications director in the White House or maybe even in Congress, when the purpose of this committee is supposed to be national security and, therefore, by definition, secrecy. Exactly. I mean, Congressman, I think listeners will be surprised to hear you call the work of Democrats on the committee partisan and maybe even destructively partisan without having heard you speak of the committee's chairman, Devin Nunes, and the work that he's done, which is widely seen as partisan. So much so that he was forced to recuse himself for a period because of his communications with the Trump administration, which felt quite extraordinary and unconventional and partisan. Well, and he did recuse himself. He has not sat in one hearing. He has not participated in any of

our interviews. You know, he has basically been completely divorced from this whole process. So if that was seen as a partisan move, he has removed himself. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I'm not very emotional about what our side's trying to do versus what their side's trying to do. But I will grant you this. There has been a complete breakdown of any kind of cordiality down there. I think that it feels hostile now. And normally when you're around Democrats, you know, it's very friendly and very cordial, especially down in the skiff because there's no press there. This is a secure room where a lot of the intelligence is. It's a secure room and you really, really can speak freely. Now that's not the way that it is.

It's gone. I mean, you go in there and you feel like you're in a very adverse situation when you're on the other side of the table from the people asking questions on the Democratic side. You know, there's a level of trust. I don't know. It's just gone. And maybe, Michael, it is from both sides. Maybe they feel the same way about me, but I'm just saying that I don't think that it can be rectified at this point. I mean, you're in a leadership position on this committee. As I understand, you're a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee. And do you not feel that you can put the committee back on track?

It seems like perhaps you're uniquely positioned to do so as somebody who very much thinks about the idea of bipartisanship. I don't think that it can be rectified. I think we're off track and it's, I think that it's irreconcilable at this point. Can we talk for just a moment about these dueling memos? It sounds from what you've been saying, like you felt the Republican memo, which suggests that the FBI and the Justice Department came from a place of bias against the president. It sounds like you feel that that might have been justified. I do. I mean, the Steele dossier was part of that. Let me give you a perfect example of

why I think the investigation has gone off the rails. For the FISA warrant to be issued to the court, we had specific testimony from Mr. McCabe of the FBI that without that Steele dossier, which was paid for by a political source, which I do not believe nor anybody should believe, that any kind of political instrument should be used as probable cause to get a warrant in a court of law. Mr. McCabe said to a direct question that without the Steele dossier, there would be no FISA warrant application for Carter Page's wiretapping. And so I've seen Democrats go on TV and specifically say that that never happened. So two days ago, just so I was making sure I wasn't crazy, I asked our staff, can you

please pull me the transcript of exactly that exchange? And I read it and he said it. And so I don't know what the sort of interpretation can be seen differently, but I think that that's why our memo was important. And I voted to release the Democrat. Look, Michael, I... So you voted to release, it sounds like both memos. Both memos, right. And I've asked our leadership in the committee that I hope that we will signal to the American people, or at least promise at some point, that we will be releasing all of the transcripts of every witness we've seen, so that everybody

gets to hear and see exactly what we saw over the course of this year. I have no doubt that they will come to the same conclusion that I did, I think. And what's that conclusion? That we have not had one witness that has said that there's been collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. And as you know, I mean, you know, this, you know, was supposed to be with regard to the intelligence community and not a criminal matter. That's Mueller's investigation. Our job was to try to see how we can make the intelligence community do a better job, write a report that probably has a lot to say about Russian attempts to influence our election

and what we need to do for 2018 to make sure that they don't. And that's really, really important. Do you suspect and do you fear that whatever you do release at the end of the investigation, regardless of its merit, the committee has so undermined its own purpose that the public won't trust it and assume it's totally politicized. Yeah, I think that that's absolutely a reality, that the well has been poisoned so bad down there that it's going to be very, very difficult to get out of that. And I mean, that's really terrible to say that I don't think that I can fix it, but I don't. I'm just being honest with you. I don't think I can do anything to fix it.

And it's really kind of sad given... It's very sad. Given the subject of national security and the sanctity of our elections. Yeah. We'll be right back. The last time that we spoke, we talked about the fact

that you represent a district in Central Florida where the president is very popular. And you seem to be struggling with this tension that you see it as your job to represent your constituents who may support the president more than you do personally. Is that how you're still thinking about it? I have to be honest with you. Politically, yeah. I mean, there's people from back home,

even up to the point where I announced that I wasn't running again. You know, I definitely got from people on my side of the aisle, like, good riddance, you know, because I didn't support the president in the last election cycle. That must hurt. It does. I am a human being. I mean, I have feelings, and these are people that helped me get elected the first time around. But I don't regret doing what I did. Now, having said all that, my frustration with Congress, my decision not to run again,

has had very little to do with Donald Trump. You know, as far as sort of like the logistical day-to-day stuff that I do up here, I very rarely have any problem worrying about, oh, what's the White House going to do? So, you know, I think that a source of my frustration more, if I could say, you know, probably lies more within the Freedom Caucus or with the fact that we don't have 60 in the Senate that stops us from doing a lot of the things that I think that we should be doing. But in terms of how you've been serving as a congressman, how do you think about representation? By which I mean, how do you think about representation? By which I mean, how do you think about the balance between representing your constituents and your own views? Yeah. I had people tell me that I wish you were in the Freedom Caucus. I'm like, well,

I'm not. But I haven't gone back on any of the things that I originally ran on, which was trying to have, you know, lesser government, a strong military, pro-life, you know, I never went against any of those things. And yet, you know, and yet that's not conservative enough. It's not. I mean, I have an A rating with the National Right to Life. I voted to cut taxes. I always get the Chamber of Commerce Award for business and, you know, those type of things that come along every year. But, you know, now being conservative is almost measured by whether or not you're willing to do things like shut the government down. You know, one of these scorched earth type pure people on everything that comes down the

pike and never compromising at all. Politically, you actually aren't really in the middle. I wonder the extent to which this now has to do with policy versus posture, because you do vote with the president, if my statistics are right, something like 96, 97 percent of the time, right? Yeah, I think that's right. You're absolutely right. It is about posturing. And I've had some people from back at home say that I wish you could have been more like X congressman or Y congressman. I think about those kind of, I'm not going to say their names, but I think about those congressmen they're talking about. And literally, I don't know one time that they've been on the house floor. I don't

know one bill that they passed into law, but they vote consistently with some of these outside conservative groups to be 100% pure on their scorecard for how much of a spine you've got or how less of a rhino you are or whatever. And just like, is our job in Washington to actually deliver for our constituents, Republican and Democrat, to make a difference, or is it to have 100% on Heritage Action or FreedomWorks? Because, I mean, unfortunately for a lot of people in districts like mine that are very, very red, it's the latter. And I just, I never wanted to play that game. Otherwise, any idiot could come up here and get an A rating from Heritage Action by just going whatever their key vote is. And I don't know. And I guess that's not representing your constituents so much as

it's representing... No, it's not representing anybody. It's representing those people who basically are just trying to get money through DonateNow emails. I mean, just so I understand, you're pro-life. You have an A rating from the National Rifle Association. You vote with the president a lot of the time. So what exactly do you think your constituents are unhappy with you over? I don't know. You should look up my grades on Heritage Action or FreedomWorks. I bet that they're not good.

Obviously, money is the root of a lot of this. And clearly, going against your own side is much more sexy for these groups than going against the traditional opponent, which would be somebody from the other party. So just so we understand how this works, it sounds like you think your constituents, if they are unhappy with you, and some of them are because they literally come up to you and say so, they're influenced by conservative groups telling them you aren't conservative enough in emails, in pitches, in kind of an internal Republican warfare.

Absolutely. That's absolutely correct. This still seems like I'm changing gears a little bit, but I'm not really. When we last spoke, it was about a month after the really horrible shooting at the Republican baseball practice in Virginia. And you were there on the field. And there was a lot of conversation about how bitterly divided we are. And we talked about whether that might be a moment that could bring people together. I feel like I know the answer to this, but did you see any evidence of that afterward? I saw that the Democrats on the Democratic team got together on that day and, you know, were praying for us. And that was very touching. I would say that, no, anything that's translated into actually working together on policy, I don't see evidence of that.

I mean, I will throw something out there, you know, because of the shooting and guns, and I'm a lifetime member of the NRA, but if anything is going to happen, you know, that shooting wasn't too far from where I grew up in Parkland. If anything's going to happen with regard to guns and a bipartisan bill, I do believe that President Trump is more popular with the people in districts like mine than the NRA is. You know, when the president had that round table at the White House, you know, you heard him saying some stuff that I know made the NRA uncomfortable. But if anybody has the power, and I really think this can be a game changer for President Trump with regard to how he said pretty explicitly that he's basically not scared of the NRA. He said, you know, they have influence with you, lawmakers, not as much with

me, which was pretty extraordinary coming from a Republican president. Look, all of this is about, for a lot of people, it's about getting reelected. And the bottom line is the NRA has an extremely sophisticated ability to either help you or hurt you from being able to continue to call yourself congressman. Donald Trump is seen in a better light than the NRA, comes along and basically tells the NRA, we're changing this part of the portfolio or whatever you want to call it that you guys have been espousing over the years. And if you don't accept this, then we're going to have a fight on it. And you got to decide whether or not you want to have that fight with me. And so I think the president wins that fight. It's just a matter of how far he's willing to go. So let's talk about you and guns for just a moment. You have an NRA rating of A, but it sounds like you're cheering for what the president is saying in these meetings.

So what kind of gun control are you hoping for? First of all, I saw the pictures of this kid from Parkland. You know, that that guy can go buy an AR-15, but he can't buy a handgun in Florida. And I think our governor's trying to change that. That's number one. So this kid can buy an AR-15, but he can't buy a Budweiser. There's a problem with that. Now, you know, I've gone shooting with my son, whale hunting or whatever, hog hunting out in Okeechobee. And so I've had to show him how to use a shotgun and a rifle, but you know, that's under my supervision. So I think that it's different.

I also own, you know, handguns that are in safes next to my bed because I feel more comfortable going to sleep that if somebody comes in my house with a weapon that I'll at least have a chance to defend myself. So, you know, that, that's why I own guns. But, you know, also, I don't know how I feel about this AR-15, by the way, I went shooting with a FBI guy a couple of weeks ago at the range and somebody had an AR-15 in the booth next to ours. And literally, you know, we're shooting our little nine millimeters and this guy has an AR-15 and it's literally like, boom, boom, boom. And I'm like trying to talk to this guy about like, you know, our targets and our shootings. I'm just like, what the hell is that? And he's like, that's an AR-15.

And I'm just like, good Lord, it's like a cannon. And so I think that you wouldn't be human if you didn't pause for a second and said, what is the purpose of that gun? Especially one with a bump stock on it. And so after Las Vegas, you know, I really thought that the bump stock thing would be a no-brainer. And then it just disappeared. Nothing happened. We should take all these shootings and figure out what are the things that we can do to address these things to try to, you know, stop it from happening in the future again and act on this. But we don't do anything because we're so worried about giving an inch,

whatever the NRA's concern is, is that if you give an inch that will want a mile. But I don't think that rational people believe that. If you call for the banning of bump stocks, if you call after going to the range with that FBI agent for a ban on the AR-15, what happens to you, Congressman? What does the NRA do to you? Well, nothing happens to me now because I'm leaving. But if you were— It would be a huge problem politically, a huge problem. Every gun store back home would know about it, that Tom Rooney was trying to limit your Second Amendment rights.

And hurt your business. There would probably be mailers. There would probably be a huge political price to pay. So did the shooting in Parkland actually change some of your positions on guns? I'm wondering why you have such a pure rating from the NRA, given how you're now talking, which is not to say that you don't have some pretty conservative views. To be honest with you, we don't have bills that come to the floor saying, let's keep the AR-15 legal, or let's do a universal background check. Those things don't come to the floor. They don't ever get to the floor because not enough people.

I mean, you're not put in a position where you're having to really look at the things that come to the floor. Things like, should the Florida concealed weapons permit be honored in New Jersey? Sure. I think so. Seems logical. I have a concealed weapons permit. I'm a law-abiding citizen. I don't want to get arrested. So, yeah, I'll vote yes on that. But I'm still wondering, did the shooting in Parkland, not just because it's close to you, but because of just how horrific it was, did it change some of your positions on guns? horrific it was, did it change some of your positions on guns? I don't know that if it changed them, but I think that if it did anything, it made me, because those kids are the same age as my kids. And so I think that it probably made me put myself in the shoes of those parents that, you know, were getting text messages from their

kids saying, you know, you are a good parent. Thank you. You know, I'm going to die now. I mean, that probably had more of an effect on me than anything. And the fact that, you know, that they were just basically sitting ducks in there. And when you hear teenagers going to Tallahassee or coming to Washington, they can really articulate their points of view with their own voice. You're just like, wow, that's really not something that I ever want to have to experience as a parent to hear or get a text from my son, you know. Congressman.

So, yeah. Sounds like you're thinking about being a parent in a moment like that. Yeah. I don't want to depress you too much on this, but if this shooting didn't necessarily change your positions on guns, why didn't you speak out before now on this? Do you put yourself in the group of Republicans who needed the president to go first on this, given the power of the NRA? Yeah, I think that you do. The reality is, in districts like mine, if you don't have, you know, the kind of support from groups like the NRA, it makes life very difficult. And you said that, you know, that this shooting might not have changed my view on guns. I just want to be clear. I don't know that if it did or didn't, I think that, look, I'm human. I don't

know how I feel about it sometimes. Like I was trying to say to you when somebody was shooting the AR-15 next to me, my first reaction is, why would you need that gun? But then you hear people that have that gun and you're just like, well, they enjoy shooting it. And they're law-abiding citizens and they're good people. And so why shouldn't they be able to go to the gun range and enjoy themselves with it? So then you're sort of conflicted and you're just like, well, that makes sense too. So we're just talking about, should law abiding citizens be punished for the sins of people that aren't or that are bad people? So how do we eliminate the bad people from getting, how do you pick and choose that? But we're not

even doing that. So we haven't been able to do anything. So, you know, I think that the president has the ability to take real leadership here and I hope that he does. And I, and I know, I think that the president has the ability to take real leadership here, and I hope that he does. And I mean, I think that you'd see a lot of people step out and follow him if he does. the time being, you were planning to seek re-election because you still felt like you wanted to get things done. And you felt like it was a test of whether the Republican Party could govern in this moment. But I think a lot of our listeners will be listening and thinking that this is exactly who we want to be in Congress, someone like you. That's exactly what my chief said when I told her that I wasn't running again and why, because I said, you know, the cost benefit of getting to call myself Congressman versus doing something else that I think that I could be useful at or happy doing,

it's just going around and having people call me Congressman just doesn't, just doesn't do it for me as much as figuring out something else I want to do. And she goes, well, that's exactly why you should stay. And I'm like, well, that's nice of you to say, but it's not going to work. So do you feel any sense of guilt that if everyone like you leaves, it's just going to get worse in Congress? I haven't really thought about that. But I mean, you know, I have a lot of friends that are like me, I think, and, you know, they're not leaving. So hopefully they'll be able to be part of something great. But we shall see. I mean, that's why we have elections.

Congressman, you spoke of your father when we first spoke as the kind of adult in the room that you think that Washington needs right now to fix what's quite evidently broken. Is your father still around? He is. What did your father say when you told him that you decided not to run for re-election? I think that he wanted me to stay because he always told me that he's like, hey, I know you don't think it's a big deal, but being a congressman is a really big deal. And, you know, I know that you hear a lot of negative stuff, but it's important.

And I said, I realize that and I appreciate that, but it's just, you know, it's not what I want to do anymore. And then, but he was very supportive after that. So he's always been great like that. Well, Congressman, I want to thank you so much for talking to us. I hope that we can stay in touch and I hope that whatever you find to be your next calling kind of fulfills your dreams for it. Thanks, Michael. I really appreciate you guys as well. I think that you've always been very fair and hopefully what you said actually comes true as well. But anyway, all the best to you. And to you as well and your family.

Bye-bye. Here's what else you need to know today. You will have protection for the first time in a long while, and you're going to regrow your industries. That's all I'm asking. You have to regrow your industries. During a meeting with manufacturing executives at the White House on Thursday, President Trump announced plans to impose steep new tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. It'll be 25% for steel. It'll be 10% for aluminum. The tariffs stem from an investigation by the Commerce Department, which found that cheap imported metals have weakened U.S. manufacturers

and could threaten national security in a time of crisis. Because without steel and aluminum, your country's not the same. And we need it. We need it even for defense, if you think. I mean, we need it for defense. We need great steelmakers, great aluminum makers for defense. In approving the tariffs, the president overruled both his chief economic advisor and his secretary of defense, who warned that they could hurt U.S. companies that rely on imported steel and

prompt retaliation by companies that export it to the U.S. A possible full-fledged trade war, the Dow plunging more than 400 points after President Trump... The Dow plunging more than 400 points. Within minutes of the president's announcement, the stock market tumbled over those exact fears. Thank you. is Peter Sale. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Lansford of Wonderly. Special thanks to Michael Gold, Sam Dolnick, and Michaela Bouchard. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro.

See you Monday.